The Holocaust wasn't a grand Jewish conspiracy. Millions of Jews did die (though it probably wasn't the 6 million oft quoted) and were actively exterminated by Hitler and the Nazis. This is an undeniable fact in this day and age. If you deny it, you aren't a white supremacist, but you are anti-semetic. We can be anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism without being anti-semetic. Br. Nathanael takes it way too far.

Seeing as the Holocaust accounts record that various other groups were targeted, your logic would imply that a "denier" is likewise anti-Slav, anti-Gay, anti-Mason, anti-Roma, anti-Communist, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Catholic, etc. Whatever happened in those camps (and there are very problematic evidence hurdles out there for those who push the official story), it was not a uniquely Jewish experience. Even if it was, however, it would not follow that a "denier" would be anti-Semite. Any more than denying the moon landing makes one anti-American or denying the Robin Hood accounts makes one anti-English.

But on the topic of Br. Nathanael, is he even a "denier"? I don't really keep up with him anymore, but last I remember, he was in the camp that suggested that Zionists perpetuated it to jump start a much larger Zionist movement.

There is a subtlety in your argument that I am not getting Ioannis.

The subhumans (Untermensch: Slavs, Jews, Roma, etc) were targeted for extermination and culling, primarily by starvation. The Poles and the Jews were the first to go. Catholic sympathizers of the subhumans with Germanic blood would likely not be tolerated as well.

There are two possibilities that I see off hand. (1) A holocaust denier is antisemitic and clueless that Slavs (for example) are subhuman as well. (2) The denier is a "white Aryan" supremacist-type person. I should note that when I was looking for forums that discussed Eastern Orthodoxy back in 2002-3 most of the links seemed to lead to these white Aryan supremacist groups. At least that was my shocked impression.

There are certainly other possibilities and one of them is probably yours.

1) How can you say they are both anti-Semitic and clueless? You are trying so hard to throw people in the anti-Semitic category it doesn't make sense.

2) I've met deniers who are white and are certainly not "white supremacists", and I've met deniers who were black (and even Jews!).

Saying one of them is probably him is very judgmental of a person you do not even know anything about.

You think incorrectly throwing out the term "anti-Semitic" automatically makes there argument moot...it doesn't because you don't know how to correctly use that term.

Some holocaust deniers just question why THAT PARTICULAR incident is more pushed in people's face than any other genocide. I'm not a denier of the Holocaust in any right (although I certainly don't think the number of Jewish deaths were 6 million, as it is impossible) (I don't believe it is right to kill any group of people; Jews, Blacks, Whites, Asians, etc), but I don't think it is fair to say the holocaust was better/worse than any other genocide. If I denied the "holocaust" of Ukrainians or Native Americans NO ONE WOULD COMPLAIN AS MUCH AS DENYING THE BLOODY HOLOCAUST. So you better attack deniers of any genocide the same as Holocaust deniers or you are the world's worst hypocrites.

Celticfan, out of all of the posts in this thread I wrote to Ioannis Climacus because I respect him and did not understand what he was trying to say. As noted, I introduced some thoughts that came immediately to mind. I assumed that neither of them were what he was getting at. Yet you seem to be attacking me for not assuming that one of them is what he was getting at.

I am very perplexed as to your response to my post. I would appreciate your pointing out how I could have been misinterpreted because I do not see it. I will not reply to your post, I just need to be educated as to where my writing style erred.

The Holocaust wasn't a grand Jewish conspiracy. Millions of Jews did die (though it probably wasn't the 6 million oft quoted) and were actively exterminated by Hitler and the Nazis. This is an undeniable fact in this day and age. If you deny it, you aren't a white supremacist, but you are anti-semetic. We can be anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism without being anti-semetic. Br. Nathanael takes it way too far.

Seeing as the Holocaust accounts record that various other groups were targeted, your logic would imply that a "denier" is likewise anti-Slav, anti-Gay, anti-Mason, anti-Roma, anti-Communist, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Catholic, etc. Whatever happened in those camps (and there are very problematic evidence hurdles out there for those who push the official story), it was not a uniquely Jewish experience. Even if it was, however, it would not follow that a "denier" would be anti-Semite. Any more than denying the moon landing makes one anti-American or denying the Robin Hood accounts makes one anti-English.

But on the topic of Br. Nathanael, is he even a "denier"? I don't really keep up with him anymore, but last I remember, he was in the camp that suggested that Zionists perpetuated it to jump start a much larger Zionist movement.

There is a subtlety in your argument that I am not getting Ioannis.

The subhumans (Untermensch: Slavs, Jews, Roma, etc) were targeted for extermination and culling, primarily by starvation. The Poles and the Jews were the first to go. Catholic sympathizers of the subhumans with Germanic blood would likely not be tolerated as well.

There are two possibilities that I see off hand. (1) A holocaust denier is antisemitic and clueless that Slavs (for example) are subhuman as well. (2) The denier is a "white Aryan" supremacist-type person. I should note that when I was looking for forums that discussed Eastern Orthodoxy back in 2002-3 most of the links seemed to lead to these white Aryan supremacist groups. At least that was my shocked impression.

There are certainly other possibilities and one of them is probably yours.

I am suggesting that "denial" does not imply "anti-Semitism". One could probably say that most "deniers" are anti-Semitic, but to assume this of all of them is faulty logic because the root of anti-Semitism is not in "denying" the Holocaust. Holocaust "denial" is on its own simply an idea. "Deniers" can be of any race, creed, philosophy, etc. The only concept which they universally oppose is the official story behind the Holocaust.

« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 11:15:53 PM by Ioannis Climacus »

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Be on the wrong side of history and be on the side of ignorance and fantasy. It's a free country - but beware of the burdens of history - for those who forget its lessons are sure to repeat its mistakes.

Do you know anything about this subject that you have not read in a book?

I do Punch. Explain what your concern is.

The problem is that I know, and have interviewed, people both on the German side as well as some that were in concentration camps. That a large number of people died in this camps in not a question. The magnitude is. My Grandmother, who lived through the war and spent four years in a Danish concentration camp, noted that directly after the war, nearly every shop was run by a Jew, and a good number of professionals were Jewish. She knew this first hand because she looked VERY Jewish, and many of the merchants actually thought that she was a Jew. She would remark; "if we killed so many of them, where did all of these come from?"

Likewise, I knew personally a priest who was incarcerated in Dachau concentration camp along with +Nicolai. His stories do not quite match everything heard in the Jewish propaganda. As we get further away from the events of WWII, and more information becomes available, there is much to cause one to take a lot of the holocaust story with a grain of salt. Now denying it altogether? That is another matter. Still, doubting the complete accuracy of the Holocaust story does not make one antisemitic. Nor does it necessarily make one ignorant. In fact, it may simply mean that the individual in question has more information than is available on TV, and realizes that, as Napoleon once wrote, history is nothing but lies that have been agree upon - and history is written (at least initially) by the victor.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

The Holocaust wasn't a grand Jewish conspiracy. Millions of Jews did die (though it probably wasn't the 6 million oft quoted) and were actively exterminated by Hitler and the Nazis. This is an undeniable fact in this day and age. If you deny it, you aren't a white supremacist, but you are anti-semetic. We can be anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism without being anti-semetic. Br. Nathanael takes it way too far.

Seeing as the Holocaust accounts record that various other groups were targeted, your logic would imply that a "denier" is likewise anti-Slav, anti-Gay, anti-Mason, anti-Roma, anti-Communist, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Catholic, etc. Whatever happened in those camps (and there are very problematic evidence hurdles out there for those who push the official story), it was not a uniquely Jewish experience. Even if it was, however, it would not follow that a "denier" would be anti-Semite. Any more than denying the moon landing makes one anti-American or denying the Robin Hood accounts makes one anti-English.

But on the topic of Br. Nathanael, is he even a "denier"? I don't really keep up with him anymore, but last I remember, he was in the camp that suggested that Zionists perpetuated it to jump start a much larger Zionist movement.

There is a subtlety in your argument that I am not getting Ioannis.

The subhumans (Untermensch: Slavs, Jews, Roma, etc) were targeted for extermination and culling, primarily by starvation. The Poles and the Jews were the first to go. Catholic sympathizers of the subhumans with Germanic blood would likely not be tolerated as well.

There are two possibilities that I see off hand. (1) A holocaust denier is antisemitic and clueless that Slavs (for example) are subhuman as well. (2) The denier is a "white Aryan" supremacist-type person. I should note that when I was looking for forums that discussed Eastern Orthodoxy back in 2002-3 most of the links seemed to lead to these white Aryan supremacist groups. At least that was my shocked impression.

There are certainly other possibilities and one of them is probably yours.

I am suggesting that "denial" does not imply "anti-Semitism". One could probably say that most "deniers" are anti-Semitic, but to assume this of all of them is faulty logic because the root of anti-Semitism is not in "denying" the Holocaust. Holocaust "denial" is on its own simply an idea. "Deniers" can be of any race, creed, philosophy, etc. The only concept which they universally oppose is the official story behind the Holocaust.

Br. Nathanael argues in one of his videos that it was only a mere few thousand Jews who were killed, and that the Nazi Party didn't specifically seek to kill & exterminate the Jews.

Last time I recall, and again, this was years ago, Br. Nathanael had stated that roughly 200,000 - 300,000 had perished in the camps (which was also the number given by the Red Cross). While I am not suggesting untruthfulness on your part, could you please cite your statement with a particular video?

This is a good point. Certainly, many Jews are aware that the official story of the Holocaust is bunk. This does not make them anti-Semitic. There is also a tendency that once the official version of something is exploded as lies, one over-compensates in one's estimation of what really happened. Unfortunately, that's like over-correcting when you are steering a car; it can get you in trouble.

I think only the numbers of deaths are bunk; the rest seems well documented. The only beefs I have with the popular misconception is that (a) the data is falsified; and (b) there is a tendency to make it out to be the biggest genocide or most murderous event of the 20th century, or Of All Time--whereas many more millions were killed in equally horrible campaigns last century. Still, for any thinking feeling human being, there has to be a particular horror occasioned by the mathematical precision, the efficiency, of the Jewish Holocaust. It makes one's blood run cold.

People with similar plans for the world abound these days. Nothing has really changed since the Holocaust.

Be on the wrong side of history and be on the side of ignorance and fantasy. It's a free country - but beware of the burdens of history - for those who forget its lessons are sure to repeat its mistakes.

Do you know anything about this subject that you have not read in a book?

I do Punch. Explain what your concern is.

The problem is that I know, and have interviewed, people both on the German side as well as some that were in concentration camps. That a large number of people died in this camps in not a question. The magnitude is. My Grandmother, who lived through the war and spent four years in a Danish concentration camp, noted that directly after the war, nearly every shop was run by a Jew, and a good number of professionals were Jewish. She knew this first hand because she looked VERY Jewish, and many of the merchants actually thought that she was a Jew. She would remark; "if we killed so many of them, where did all of these come from?"

Likewise, I knew personally a priest who was incarcerated in Dachau concentration camp along with +Nicolai. His stories do not quite match everything heard in the Jewish propaganda. As we get further away from the events of WWII, and more information becomes available, there is much to cause one to take a lot of the holocaust story with a grain of salt. Now denying it altogether? That is another matter. Still, doubting the complete accuracy of the Holocaust story does not make one antisemitic. Nor does it necessarily make one ignorant. In fact, it may simply mean that the individual in question has more information than is available on TV, and realizes that, as Napoleon once wrote, history is nothing but lies that have been agree upon - and history is written (at least initially) by the victor.

Let me give you my perspective which is the opposite of yours. My mother lived through the occupation of Crete by the Germans and was forced to watch them shoot her uncles and cousins. She steadfastly believed that the British abandoned Crete before the Germans came. No arguments or evidence to the contrary would sway her and there were many arguments between my father and mother on this issue. Do I believe my mother who was there on the ground? No! The vast preponderance of evidence by historians indicates that she was unaware of what was going on. And believe me I love her more than you could ever know.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

This is a good point. Certainly, many Jews are aware that the official story of the Holocaust is bunk. This does not make them anti-Semitic. There is also a tendency that once the official version of something is exploded as lies, one over-compensates in one's estimation of what really happened. Unfortunately, that's like over-correcting when you are steering a car; it can get you in trouble.

I think only the numbers of deaths are bunk; the rest seems well documented. The only beefs I have with the popular misconception is that (a) the data is falsified; and (b) there is a tendency to make it out to be the biggest genocide or most murderous event of the 20th century, or Of All Time--whereas many more millions were killed in equally horrible campaigns last century. Still, for any thinking feeling human being, there has to be a particular horror occasioned by the mathematical precision, the efficiency, of the Jewish Holocaust. It makes one's blood run cold.

People with similar plans for the world abound these days. Nothing has really changed since the Holocaust.

Agreed.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Be on the wrong side of history and be on the side of ignorance and fantasy. It's a free country - but beware of the burdens of history - for those who forget its lessons are sure to repeat its mistakes.

Do you know anything about this subject that you have not read in a book?

I do Punch. Explain what your concern is.

The problem is that I know, and have interviewed, people both on the German side as well as some that were in concentration camps. That a large number of people died in this camps in not a question. The magnitude is. My Grandmother, who lived through the war and spent four years in a Danish concentration camp, noted that directly after the war, nearly every shop was run by a Jew, and a good number of professionals were Jewish. She knew this first hand because she looked VERY Jewish, and many of the merchants actually thought that she was a Jew. She would remark; "if we killed so many of them, where did all of these come from?"

Likewise, I knew personally a priest who was incarcerated in Dachau concentration camp along with +Nicolai. His stories do not quite match everything heard in the Jewish propaganda. As we get further away from the events of WWII, and more information becomes available, there is much to cause one to take a lot of the holocaust story with a grain of salt. Now denying it altogether? That is another matter. Still, doubting the complete accuracy of the Holocaust story does not make one antisemitic. Nor does it necessarily make one ignorant. In fact, it may simply mean that the individual in question has more information than is available on TV, and realizes that, as Napoleon once wrote, history is nothing but lies that have been agree upon - and history is written (at least initially) by the victor.

Let me give you my perspective which is the opposite of yours. My mother lived through the occupation of Crete by the Germans and was forced to watch them shoot her uncles and cousins. She steadfastly believed that the British abandoned Crete before the Germans came. No arguments or evidence to the contrary would sway her and there were many arguments between my father and mother on this issue. Do I believe my mother who was there on the ground? No! The vast preponderance of evidence by historians indicates that she was unaware of what was going on. And believe me I love her more than you could ever know.

Her uncles and cousins were probably part of the island's defense. The people of Crete fought strongly against the Germans, and it was the first time (and pretty much the only time outside of the Balkans) that a large civilian population resisted the Germans with force of arms. Unfortunately, due to the number of civilian resistors, and the fact that the combatants wore no armbands or insignia, the Germans pretty well shot everyone when they ran into resistance. It should be noted that even women and priests fought bravely against the Germans in that battle. The elite German paratroopers were so shot up by the end that Germany never mounted a raid on this scale by paratroopers again.

As to the British, they were just stupid. Churchill full well understood the value of Crete and had no intention of handing it over to the Germans. They even had broken the German code by then and pretty much knew what the Germans were up to. Somehow, it never occured to them that the Germans just may use the airfields for bringing in heavier armed troops. The British did not betray the people of Crete by abandoning them, they betrayed them by being stupid. I can understand your mother's feelings, and as a descendant of the Germans that attacked that country, I have nothing but respect for the people. They had guts. But then again, I think all of history previous to the war should have told the Germans that the civilian population would not take kindly to their invasion. It was so obvious that some historians suggested that opposition within the Nazi party (Admiral Canaris) intended for the operation to fail to embarrass Hitler. While there is some evidence for that, I think that the Germans simply did not know what they were getting into.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Be on the wrong side of history and be on the side of ignorance and fantasy. It's a free country - but beware of the burdens of history - for those who forget its lessons are sure to repeat its mistakes.

Do you know anything about this subject that you have not read in a book?

I do Punch. Explain what your concern is.

The problem is that I know, and have interviewed, people both on the German side as well as some that were in concentration camps. That a large number of people died in this camps in not a question. The magnitude is. My Grandmother, who lived through the war and spent four years in a Danish concentration camp, noted that directly after the war, nearly every shop was run by a Jew, and a good number of professionals were Jewish. She knew this first hand because she looked VERY Jewish, and many of the merchants actually thought that she was a Jew. She would remark; "if we killed so many of them, where did all of these come from?"

Likewise, I knew personally a priest who was incarcerated in Dachau concentration camp along with +Nicolai. His stories do not quite match everything heard in the Jewish propaganda. As we get further away from the events of WWII, and more information becomes available, there is much to cause one to take a lot of the holocaust story with a grain of salt. Now denying it altogether? That is another matter. Still, doubting the complete accuracy of the Holocaust story does not make one antisemitic. Nor does it necessarily make one ignorant. In fact, it may simply mean that the individual in question has more information than is available on TV, and realizes that, as Napoleon once wrote, history is nothing but lies that have been agree upon - and history is written (at least initially) by the victor.

Let me give you my perspective which is the opposite of yours. My mother lived through the occupation of Crete by the Germans and was forced to watch them shoot her uncles and cousins. She steadfastly believed that the British abandoned Crete before the Germans came. No arguments or evidence to the contrary would sway her and there were many arguments between my father and mother on this issue. Do I believe my mother who was there on the ground? No! The vast preponderance of evidence by historians indicates that she was unaware of what was going on. And believe me I love her more than you could ever know.

Her uncles and cousins were probably part of the island's defense. The people of Crete fought strongly against the Germans, and it was the first time (and pretty much the only time outside of the Balkans) that a large civilian population resisted the Germans with force of arms. Unfortunately, due to the number of civilian resistors, and the fact that the combatants wore no armbands or insignia, the Germans pretty well shot everyone when they ran into resistance. It should be noted that even women and priests fought bravely against the Germans in that battle. The elite German paratroopers were so shot up by the end that Germany never mounted a raid on this scale by paratroopers again.

As to the British, they were just stupid. Churchill full well understood the value of Crete and had no intention of handing it over to the Germans. They even had broken the German code by then and pretty much knew what the Germans were up to. Somehow, it never occured to them that the Germans just may use the airfields for bringing in heavier armed troops. The British did not betray the people of Crete by abandoning them, they betrayed them by being stupid. I can understand your mother's feelings, and as a descendant of the Germans that attacked that country, I have nothing but respect for the people. They had guts. But then again, I think all of history previous to the war should have told the Germans that the civilian population would not take kindly to their invasion. It was so obvious that some historians suggested that opposition within the Nazi party (Admiral Canaris) intended for the operation to fail to embarrass Hitler. While there is some evidence for that, I think that the Germans simply did not know what they were getting into.

Thank you for saying this Punch. I decided my writing about the battle for Crete would seem like boasting.

The Holocaust wasn't a grand Jewish conspiracy. Millions of Jews did die (though it probably wasn't the 6 million oft quoted) and were actively exterminated by Hitler and the Nazis. This is an undeniable fact in this day and age. If you deny it, you aren't a white supremacist, but you are anti-semetic. We can be anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism without being anti-semetic. Br. Nathanael takes it way too far.

Seeing as the Holocaust accounts record that various other groups were targeted, your logic would imply that a "denier" is likewise anti-Slav, anti-Gay, anti-Mason, anti-Roma, anti-Communist, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Catholic, etc. Whatever happened in those camps (and there are very problematic evidence hurdles out there for those who push the official story), it was not a uniquely Jewish experience. Even if it was, however, it would not follow that a "denier" would be anti-Semite. Any more than denying the moon landing makes one anti-American or denying the Robin Hood accounts makes one anti-English.

But on the topic of Br. Nathanael, is he even a "denier"? I don't really keep up with him anymore, but last I remember, he was in the camp that suggested that Zionists perpetuated it to jump start a much larger Zionist movement.

There is a subtlety in your argument that I am not getting Ioannis.

The subhumans (Untermensch: Slavs, Jews, Roma, etc) were targeted for extermination and culling, primarily by starvation. The Poles and the Jews were the first to go. Catholic sympathizers of the subhumans with Germanic blood would likely not be tolerated as well.

There are two possibilities that I see off hand. (1) A holocaust denier is antisemitic and clueless that Slavs (for example) are subhuman as well. (2) The denier is a "white Aryan" supremacist-type person. I should note that when I was looking for forums that discussed Eastern Orthodoxy back in 2002-3 most of the links seemed to lead to these white Aryan supremacist groups. At least that was my shocked impression.

There are certainly other possibilities and one of them is probably yours.

1) How can you say they are both anti-Semitic and clueless? You are trying so hard to throw people in the anti-Semitic category it doesn't make sense.

2) I've met deniers who are white and are certainly not "white supremacists", and I've met deniers who were black (and even Jews!).

Saying one of them is probably him is very judgmental of a person you do not even know anything about.

You think incorrectly throwing out the term "anti-Semitic" automatically makes there argument moot...it doesn't because you don't know how to correctly use that term.

Some holocaust deniers just question why THAT PARTICULAR incident is more pushed in people's face than any other genocide. I'm not a denier of the Holocaust in any right (although I certainly don't think the number of Jewish deaths were 6 million, as it is impossible) (I don't believe it is right to kill any group of people; Jews, Blacks, Whites, Asians, etc), but I don't think it is fair to say the holocaust was better/worse than any other genocide. If I denied the "holocaust" of Ukrainians or Native Americans NO ONE WOULD COMPLAIN AS MUCH AS DENYING THE BLOODY HOLOCAUST. So you better attack deniers of any genocide the same as Holocaust deniers or you are the world's worst hypocrites.

The actions of the Third Reich will remain among the greatest of crimes against humanity for a number of reasons.

The German people allowed their political leadership to devolve into insanity. Why this is significant from an historical point of view can be summed up rather succinctly - the Germans were probably the best educated people in western Europe coming into the mid-20th century. Their culture, their musical genius, their industriousness, their scientific accomplishments m their philosophers and yes - their military and political acumen placed Germany at the pinnacle of 20th century Western Civilization in the eyes of many commentators of the time and many historians. The way in which such a highly esteemed culture and 'body politic' was able to dive into the depths of evil and depravity should trouble all of us in the west - including the United States. The Jews had, to all appearances, been assimilated into German culture and the German mind-set in a manner not seen in the rest of Europe. While the vile nationalism of Aryanism had some adherents prior to Weimar and the Nazi election (yes - the Nazi's took power via election and were asked to form a government) but never to the degree where anyone thought it had the power to seize power and control the destiny of a great people.

The sheer scale of what the Nazis did over a period of nearly ten years and the manner in which the industrial, communications, transportation and military powers of the state were marshalled to this incredible evil was remarkable - while at the same time engaging in a two continent, multi-front war which ravaged the west for seven years of total war. It is frightening and must be remembered lest we allow such a thing to ever occur again.

Finally, we have documentary evidence from the first hand accounts of tens of thousands of Allied troops who liberated the camps - American, British, French, Russian and other allied soldiers - Christians, Jews, atheists, communists, royalists, whites, blacks, Asian-Americans - you name it.... If you believe it all to be a conspiracy - well so be it - but you and those who think like you - delude yourselves and deny that which is real.

Finally the Holocaust was not just directed at Jews - Slavs, Roma, the mentally ill, the homosexuals, Allied prisoners of war (particularly Russians and Ukrainians), valiant resistance fighters (many of whom resettled in America after the communist take overs in Eastern Europe and men and women I was proud to get to know - the bravery of simple people never ceases to amaze and inspire me) and many, many men and women of Faith - both Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics and Protestants who took a stand against evil when most looked the other way.

Be on the wrong side of history and be on the side of ignorance and fantasy. It's a free country - but beware of the burdens of history - for those who forget its lessons are sure to repeat its mistakes.

I would just close with a link to this article about the German theologians of the time, Niehbur, Tillich and Bonhoeffer - it is worth reading and praying for their souls and the souls of all who suffered persecution under the Third Reich. Deniers dishonor their sacrifice and the sacrifices of millions of our countrymen and our allies who served the cause of freedom in the Great War by giving the last full measure of devotion. http://www.thefix.com/content/serenity-prayers-desperate-origins-Niehbur-Bonhoeffer-Tillich9965

Finally, I know that none of this will change the minds or hearts of the so-called deniers or the minimizers. So be it, but to remain silent in the face of their claims is to repeat the sin of the majority of good Germans who looked the other way until it was too late.

I agree with the thesis that this particular holocaust was remarkable because it was perpetrated by Germans, one of the most cultured and civilized nations in the world. Of course, it was also remarkable because it was indeed carried with the efficiency and thoroughness that Germans are known for. I have no idea why folks are so fixated on the numbers; the fact is that the German Nazis were determined to wipe out the Jewish race and they almost succeeded. This is indeed a holocaust that stands out in history and to belittle or downgrade its historical significance is beyond me. Now, there have been other mass killings, that were occasioned by the willful targeting of certain people. I am not disregarding the accidental killing of vast numbers of people, as happened to the Native Americans in the New World, due to illnesses which were brought amongst them by the Europeans. I am thinking of the fact that the greatest number of killings were done by Communists in the pursuit of the greater good, just as the Nazis justified themselves. However, the Jewish Holocaust remains the greatest holocaust in the Twentieth Century in terms of percentage killed of the targeted population.

Finally, we have documentary evidence from the first hand accounts of tens of thousands of Allied troops who liberated the camps - American, British, French, Russian and other allied soldiers - Christians, Jews, atheists, communists, royalists, whites, blacks, Asian-Americans - you name it.... If you believe it all to be a conspiracy - well so be it - but you and those who think like you - delude yourselves and deny that which is real.

Be on the wrong side of history and be on the side of ignorance and fantasy. It's a free country - but beware of the burdens of history - for those who forget its lessons are sure to repeat its mistakes.

If you aren't going to read my post, don't reply.

You really ticked me off by saying that. You are the reason internet debates turn into screaming. You built a strawman.

I, and most other Orthodox Christians including our beloved Bishops and priests that I have been honored to know over my lifetime, are appalled by the continued nonsense that many spew in the name of our Church.

You, and the other defenders of 'Brother' Kepner, built the strawman in defense of his hate filled nonsense. Such nonsense defiles the true Orthodox heroes of the era from St. Gorazd of Prague to St. Alexander of Orenburg and little noted heroes such as the Orthodox priest and faithful of the tiny village of Vilage (now known as Svetlice) in eastern Slovakia.

Yes, I am 'book learned' and some in modern America, such makes one's arguments apparently less important than those formed by bias and opinion. And Punch, by the way, my late father in law was a decorated jump Sgt. of the 82nd airborne with a Silver Star from the Bulge and three campaign jumps during the war. He provided me with just one of many first hand narratives with which I am familiar.

Defending the truth does NOT equate to defending the policies of the Zionist state of Israel and its 'special relationship' with the political leaders of this country and many in western Europe. I am not a defender of Zionism or Israel and I fully believe that American policy, as well as that of western Europe, since the war has been motivated by the guilt of not dealing with the 'Jewish' question over the centuries and allowing it slide into the abyss into which the Germans pushed it. I would suggest you write your OCA bishop with your concerns about these issues, being as bold in your assertions as you are online and see what sort of response you might get.

And Punch, by the way, my late father in law was a decorated jump Sgt. of the 82nd airborne with a Silver Star from the Bulge and three campaign jumps during the war. He provided me with just one of many first hand narratives with which I am familiar.

If one of those jumps was Market Garden, the British hosed over more of your family than just your mother's side.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

And Punch, by the way, my late father in law was a decorated jump Sgt. of the 82nd airborne with a Silver Star from the Bulge and three campaign jumps during the war. He provided me with just one of many first hand narratives with which I am familiar.

If one of those jumps was Market Garden, the British hosed over more of your family than just your mother's side.

Ah yes, nothing like resorting to either a non sequitur or an ad hominem when one has nothing intelligenty to offer in return in a debate. Why don't you go on down to Ft. Bragg and challenge some of today's heroes there in the 82nd to a debate regarding the history of their division and its efforts in the second world war. There is little point to continue with this discussion.

And Punch, by the way, my late father in law was a decorated jump Sgt. of the 82nd airborne with a Silver Star from the Bulge and three campaign jumps during the war. He provided me with just one of many first hand narratives with which I am familiar.

If one of those jumps was Market Garden, the British hosed over more of your family than just your mother's side.

Ah yes, nothing like resorting to either a non sequitur or an ad hominem when one has nothing intelligenty to offer in return in a debate. Why don't you go on down to Ft. Bragg and challenge some of today's heroes there in the 82nd to a debate regarding the history of their division and its efforts in the second world war. There is little point to continue with this discussion.

What exactly is supposed to be debated? Were you looking for an argument surrounding the evidence for the Holocaust? If so, that topic has been thoroughly exausted on this forum before. I think most of us here are more interested in discussing Br. Nathanael (who isn't even a "denier").

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

I want to make it clear that I have not defended any strange views of Br. Nathanael.

He and I disagree, obviously, on the Holocaust. That's just one example.

But I tend to speak up for people who have been falsely accused.

Of what has Nathanael been falsely accused?

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

Br. Nathanael argues in one of his videos that it was only a mere few thousand Jews who were killed, and that the Nazi Party didn't specifically seek to kill & exterminate the Jews.

Last time I recall, and again, this was years ago, Br. Nathanael had stated that roughly 200,000 - 300,000 had perished in the camps (which was also the number given by the Red Cross). While I am not suggesting untruthfulness on your part, could you please cite your statement with a particular video?

And Punch, by the way, my late father in law was a decorated jump Sgt. of the 82nd airborne with a Silver Star from the Bulge and three campaign jumps during the war. He provided me with just one of many first hand narratives with which I am familiar.

If one of those jumps was Market Garden, the British hosed over more of your family than just your mother's side.

Ah yes, nothing like resorting to either a non sequitur or an ad hominem when one has nothing intelligenty to offer in return in a debate. Why don't you go on down to Ft. Bragg and challenge some of today's heroes there in the 82nd to a debate regarding the history of their division and its efforts in the second world war. There is little point to continue with this discussion.

Maybe you should learn to read English. The failure of Market Garden was a failure of British planning, not that of the 82 or 101st airborn. They took their objectives. I would guarantee you that not one of the men at Bragg would disagree with my assessment. Hence my statement that if he was involved with Market Garden, the British would have hosed over more than your mother's family in Crete. A lot of American paratroopers died during that battle that should have not been fought in the first place (not to mention British Paras and the Poles, who were just plain wasted, I believe intentionally). Had the resources been given to Patton (including the 82nd), the war would likely have been over a lot sooner. Maybe you should stop trying to find controversy where there is none. If you misunderstand my words so completely, why should I believe that you have the capacity to understand anyone, let alone Brother Nathanael?

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

However, he seems to be falsely accused of racism. No one has produced any outright evidence for it, and it's a very weighty charge.

I have several times produced quite incontrovertible evidence from his own words. Only someone in desperate denial could come to a different conclusion.

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

Br. Nathanael argues in one of his videos that it was only a mere few thousand Jews who were killed, and that the Nazi Party didn't specifically seek to kill & exterminate the Jews.

Last time I recall, and again, this was years ago, Br. Nathanael had stated that roughly 200,000 - 300,000 had perished in the camps (which was also the number given by the Red Cross). While I am not suggesting untruthfulness on your part, could you please cite your statement with a particular video?

Racialism is racism. The attempt to distinguish the two is just white nationalist spin, like the KKK's attempt to brand itself a "white rights organization."

Here are Nathanael's words again (emphases mine):

Quote

When the highly acclaimed author and historian Hillaire Belloc exclaimed, “Europe is the Church and the Church is Europe!” he was simply expressing the fact that it was Christianity that made Europe and the worldwide civilization it produced and NOT the pagan philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle.

And this Christian Faith — if one merely takes a tour of the European landscape with its countless Cathedrals, Monasteries and Churches from which living people (yes, racially white) — built that very Western Civilization that White Nationalists bemoan the decline of.

You see, a kind of manifest destiny was conferred upon White Europeans whose lineage can be traced to the Biblical figure of Japheth – Noah’s third son and progenitor of the peoples of Europe.

St Justin Martyr of the 2nd Century in his “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” brought to light the mystery of Noah’s Old Testament prophecy that God would enlarge the tents of Japheth under whose roof Noah’s other two sons – Shem, (father of the Semitic people which included the Hebrews), and Ham, (father of the black race) – would dwell, in the new and superseding era of the Christian Church.

White Identity is indeed a necessary component in resisting the nightmare of multi-racialism that the Jewish agenda brought to America and throughout Europe.

International Jewry’s objective, intent, and aim? To destroy the one force that could oppose them: namely, a White Christian political power bloc.

Several things are clear here:

Nathanael believes that European ("white") civilization and Christianity are synonymous (he approvingly quotes Belloc: "Europe is the Church and the Church is Europe").

The "white race" was given a special mission to build a Christian civilization, apart from other races and above them.

Only a white Christian power bloc (not a Hispanic one, not a black one) is capable of opposing "international Jewry". This means the supremacy of white people as defenders of Christendom.

In decrying "the nightmare of multiracialism", Nathanael solidifies his presentation of Christianity as something primarily for white people. The real Church has always been multiracial from its very beginnings. In the Church, people of different "races" share something much more intimate than land or political power- they share a Chalice and a Body.

Nathanael is therefore a heretic for denying the Catholic character of the Church.

And if there is any doubt still that he is a racist, it can only exist in the minds of confused or willfully deluded people whose own latent sympathy for white nationalism blinds them.

« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 09:51:33 PM by Iconodule »

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

Finally, we have documentary evidence from the first hand accounts of tens of thousands of Allied troops who liberated the camps - American, British, French, Russian and other allied soldiers - Christians, Jews, atheists, communists, royalists, whites, blacks, Asian-Americans - you name it.... If you believe it all to be a conspiracy - well so be it - but you and those who think like you - delude yourselves and deny that which is real.

Be on the wrong side of history and be on the side of ignorance and fantasy. It's a free country - but beware of the burdens of history - for those who forget its lessons are sure to repeat its mistakes.

If you aren't going to read my post, don't reply.

You really ticked me off by saying that. You are the reason internet debates turn into screaming. You built a strawman.

I, and most other Orthodox Christians including our beloved Bishops and priests that I have been honored to know over my lifetime, are appalled by the continued nonsense that many spew in the name of our Church.

You, and the other defenders of 'Brother' Kepner, built the strawman in defense of his hate filled nonsense. Such nonsense defiles the true Orthodox heroes of the era from St. Gorazd of Prague to St. Alexander of Orenburg and little noted heroes such as the Orthodox priest and faithful of the tiny village of Vilage (now known as Svetlice) in eastern Slovakia.

Yes, I am 'book learned' and some in modern America, such makes one's arguments apparently less important than those formed by bias and opinion. And Punch, by the way, my late father in law was a decorated jump Sgt. of the 82nd airborne with a Silver Star from the Bulge and three campaign jumps during the war. He provided me with just one of many first hand narratives with which I am familiar.

Defending the truth does NOT equate to defending the policies of the Zionist state of Israel and its 'special relationship' with the political leaders of this country and many in western Europe. I am not a defender of Zionism or Israel and I fully believe that American policy, as well as that of western Europe, since the war has been motivated by the guilt of not dealing with the 'Jewish' question over the centuries and allowing it slide into the abyss into which the Germans pushed it. I would suggest you write your OCA bishop with your concerns about these issues, being as bold in your assertions as you are online and see what sort of response you might get.

No, you accused me of being a holocaust denier (which I am not), and I am insulted by such. That is your strawman. I demand an apology because I am scandalized you call me that. I've never even said anything implying I was.

Fact of the matter is, you didn't read my posts and reply to any of my points. You just falsely called me a "conspiracy theorist" and "holocaust denier" and acted like that somehow proves your point. It doesn't, any whiney teenager can accomplish what you did by your method. Making up false accusations to try to win a debate? Psh, grow up.

Racialism is racism. The attempt to distinguish the two is just white nationalist spin, like the KKK's attempt to brand itself a "white rights organization."

Here are Nathanael's words again (emphases mine):

Quote

When the highly acclaimed author and historian Hillaire Belloc exclaimed, “Europe is the Church and the Church is Europe!” he was simply expressing the fact that it was Christianity that made Europe and the worldwide civilization it produced and NOT the pagan philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle.

And this Christian Faith — if one merely takes a tour of the European landscape with its countless Cathedrals, Monasteries and Churches from which living people (yes, racially white) — built that very Western Civilization that White Nationalists bemoan the decline of.

You see, a kind of manifest destiny was conferred upon White Europeans whose lineage can be traced to the Biblical figure of Japheth – Noah’s third son and progenitor of the peoples of Europe.

St Justin Martyr of the 2nd Century in his “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” brought to light the mystery of Noah’s Old Testament prophecy that God would enlarge the tents of Japheth under whose roof Noah’s other two sons – Shem, (father of the Semitic people which included the Hebrews), and Ham, (father of the black race) – would dwell, in the new and superseding era of the Christian Church.

White Identity is indeed a necessary component in resisting the nightmare of multi-racialism that the Jewish agenda brought to America and throughout Europe.

International Jewry’s objective, intent, and aim? To destroy the one force that could oppose them: namely, a White Christian political power bloc.

Several things are clear here:

Nathanael believes that European ("white") civilization and Christianity are synonymous (he approvingly quotes Belloc: "Europe is the Church and the Church is Europe").

The "white race" was given a special mission to build a Christian civilization, apart from other races and above them.

You are still putting words in Br. Nathanael's mouth. Yes, he believes the white race has a special role to play in defending Christianity. He even believes this was ordained by God. This, however, is not enough to make him into a supremacist. Were it so, it would be equally logical to suggest that the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament were [Hebrew] supremacists (seeing as Israel was, at the time, defined primarily by lineage)

In decrying "the nightmare of multiracialism", Nathanael solidifies his presentation of Christianity as something primarily for white people. The real Church has always been multiracial from its very beginnings. In the Church, people of different "races" share something much more intimate than land or political power- they share a Chalice and a Body.

Nathanael is therefore a heretic for denying the Catholic character of the Church.

No, not once does Br. Nathanael present the Church in such a manner. He has never advocated racial exclusiveness. While disagreeable, this can be likened to the belief of certain Russians and Greeks that their respective nations were chosen by God for a special purpose.

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Yes, he believes the white race has a special role to play in defending Christianity. He even believes this was ordained by God. This, however, is not enough to make him into a supremacist.

He believes the white race not only has a special role, but that only the white race is capable of forming the Christian bulwark against the Jews. Yes, that is a white supremacist position.

Quote

Were it so, it would be equally logical to suggest that the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament were [Hebrew] supremacists (seeing as Israel was, at the time, defined primarily by lineage)

The Israelites were in fact God's chosen people. There are no chosen people now, apart from the whole Church.

Quote

No, not once does Br. Nathanael present the Church in such a manner. He has never advocated racial exclusiveness. While disagreeable, this can be likened to the belief of certain Russians and Greeks that their respective nations were chosen by God for a special purpose.

You are willfully ignoring what is right in front of you. Nathanael time and again rails against "the nightmare of multiracialism" and interracial marriage. In other words, he is in favor of racial exclusivism.

One can believe that certain nations have a special mission without tying that mission to a particular racial identity or condemning those who intermarry from that nation.

Those who oppose a multiracial society oppose the Church. Those who revile interracial marriage revile God's saints.

« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 10:42:59 PM by Iconodule »

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

He believes the white race not only has a special role, but that only the white race is capable of forming the Christian bulwark against the Jews. Yes, that is a white supremacist position.

No, its not a white supremacist position. You could say that the vast majority of people who hold such a view are indeed white supremacists, but there is no logical ground to exclusively connect the two. For example, only males may be priests. This is not sexism, but rather an acknowledgement of a role that only men may play. This can indeed be likened to Br. Nathanael's views on race.

You are willfully ignoring what is right in front of you. Nathanael time and again rails against "the nightmare of multiracialism" and interracial marriage. In other words, he is in favor of racial exclusivism.

You took my use of "racial exclusiveness" out of context. I was specifically referencing the Church, of which Br. Nathanael has never advocated as such (which is the only way that his position could slightly be construed as 'heretical'). It still does not follow, however, that anti-multiracialism is in of it self racist. As a trend, you could say that most anti-multiracialist do carry racist sentiment, but this is not always the case (as seen with both Br. Nathanael and Spengler). The problem, Iconodule, is that you are only seeing the issues in black and white. There are a great number of positions that people have that do not fall into one of two extremes (namely multiracialism and racial supremacism).

John, do you agree with Br Nathanael or are you just debating about his views?

On some things, I agree with Br. Nathanael (mostly anti-Zionism), on others, I disagree, and on a great many, I am agnostic. Now, as far as racial theories go, I am in agreement with neither Br. Nathanael nor Spengler. I see race as a neutral factor, so I have no objections to interracial marriage or multiracialism. I do, however, have objections to both false allegations against Br. Nathanael (namely his supposed racism) and to ideological newspeak (i.e. the tendency to quantify all ideas into one of two diametrically opposed camps).

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Fact of the matter is, you didn't read my posts and reply to any of my points. You just falsely called me a "conspiracy theorist" and "holocaust denier" and acted like that somehow proves your point. It doesn't, any whiney teenager can accomplish what you did by your method. Making up false accusations to try to win a debate? Psh, grow up.

I don't think that he can read.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Fact of the matter is, you didn't read my posts and reply to any of my points. You just falsely called me a "conspiracy theorist" and "holocaust denier" and acted like that somehow proves your point. It doesn't, any whiney teenager can accomplish what you did by your method. Making up false accusations to try to win a debate? Psh, grow up.

Fact of the matter is, you didn't read my posts and reply to any of my points. You just falsely called me a "conspiracy theorist" and "holocaust denier" and acted like that somehow proves your point. It doesn't, any whiney teenager can accomplish what you did by your method. Making up false accusations to try to win a debate? Psh, grow up.

I don't think that he can read.

I hope that is so, otherwise he's just a tad rude huh?

Many folks here have been quite rude and emotional, coming close to ad hominem usage. I am locking this as I consult with the moderator team on the ad hominem issue. Second Chance